{"id":3468,"date":"2026-09-21T10:08:04","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T15:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iniciativalegal.com\/?p=3468"},"modified":"2026-09-21T10:11:14","modified_gmt":"2026-09-21T15:11:14","slug":"socio-o-trabajador-en-una-empresa-que-definio-la-corte-suprema-en-la-sentencia-sl642-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iniciativalegal.com\/en\/socio-o-trabajador-en-una-empresa-que-definio-la-corte-suprema-en-la-sentencia-sl642-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Partner or Employee at a Company: What the Supreme Court Decided in Ruling SL642-2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is a common scenario in family businesses and projects between acquaintances: a person contributes work, management, or capital in exchange for a percentage of the profits, and over time ends up running the day-to-day operations of the project. When the relationship breaks down, the underlying question arises: was that person really a partner<\/strong> in the business, or did they actually provide their services as a subordinate employee<\/strong>, entitled to wages, social benefits, and severance pay? Colombia's Supreme Court of Justice<\/strong>, through its Labor Cassation Chamber<\/strong>, recently decided a case that sets clear criteria on this point.<\/p>\n

The Case: Managing a Real Estate Project in Exchange for Profits<\/h2>\n

The case decided in ruling SL642-2026<\/strong> (Case No. 25899-31-05-001-2023-00137-01, Reporting Justice Marjorie Z\u00fa\u00f1iga Romero<\/strong>, June 24, 2026) arose from two private agreements signed in 2016 and 2018 between an individual and the company Constructora Vivir Bien SAS<\/strong> for the development of a real estate project. Under those agreements, the plaintiff took part as an industrial partner<\/strong>, entitled to 9% of the project's profits, and took on management, administration, and marketing duties.<\/p>\n

When the relationship ended, the project manager sued the construction company, arguing that, in reality, the parties had an employment contract<\/strong> for an indefinite term, and sought wages, social benefits, social security contributions, and the severance payments under articles 64 and 65 of the Labor Code. Both the first-instance labor court and the Superior Court of Cundinamarca, on appeal, denied his claims, concluding that the relationship was corporate in nature rather than an employment relationship. The case reached the Supreme Court on a cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

The Decisive Criterion: Subordination, Not Profits or Management<\/h2>\n

The Court reiterated that the element that distinguishes an employment contract from any other type of relationship \u2014including a corporate or commercial one\u2014 is subordination<\/strong>: that the person is subject to the orders, direction, and control of someone else within the organization. Article 23 of the Labor Code provides that an employment contract requires, among other elements, \u201cthe continued subordination or dependence of the employee on the employer, which entitles the employer to demand compliance with orders, at any time, as to the manner, timing, or amount of work.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this specific case, the Court found that project decisions were made by a partners' committee<\/strong>, in which the plaintiff himself took part with voice and vote, and that his management stemmed from the performance of an associative contract<\/strong> governed by article 98 of the Commercial Code \u2014which defines a company as the contract by which two or more people undertake to make a contribution \u201cfor the purpose of sharing among themselves the profits obtained from the business or corporate activity\u201d\u2014 rather than from the subordination inherent to an employment relationship.<\/p>\n

What Is Not Enough, On Its Own, to Prove an Employment Contract<\/h2>\n